Chauffeurs,florists, photographers and cake makers will be sacked if they object to same-sex marriage

By Deacon Nick Donnelly, on June 20th, 2013

David Cameron’s government has admitted under scrutiny from the House of Lords that they want to give commercial employers to be able to sack staff who refuse to participate in same-sex marriage. The Coalition for Marriage reports:

‘Up until now, officials in the equalities office have been telling Government ministers that the Bill won’t harm the liberty of people who disagree with it. But after pressure in the House of Lords, Government ministers have admitted they want commercial companies to be able to sack staff who refuse to be involved with same-sex marriages.

The Government thinks commercial chauffeurs who object to a same-sex marriage should be dismissed. By the same logic, florists, photographers and cake makers would also be in the firing line. We want a reasonable accommodation for such workers, a bit of flexibility which takes account of people’s sincere beliefs. But so far the Government has stubbornly refused.

We are also calling for protections for public sector workers like teachers and chaplains; and we want to make sure that local councils can’t penalise organisations who disagree with same-sex marriage. So far, the Government won’t give way.’

In contrast to David Cameron’s government obvious intention to impose totalitarian compliance to same-sex marriage the Council of Europe has passed by an overwhelming majority a resolution in favour of the “reasonable accommodation” of the sincerely-held views of Christians clashing with employers or the authorities.

‘Passed by 148 votes to three, the resolution urges 47 member states to “accommodate religious beliefs in the public sphere by guaranteeing freedom of thought in relation to health care, education and the civil service provided that the rights of others to be free from discrimination are respected and that the access to lawful services is guaranteed”. It also called on member states to “ensure the right to well-defined conscientious objection in relation to morally sensitive matters.”

Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, said she was delighted that the Council of Europe had called for reasonable accommodation to protect freedom of religion.

“We urge the European Court of Human Rights to insist on such accommodation as a sensible, practical way forward and we call on the UK to begin to reflect this important principle,” she said.

“Solutions need to be found to set the tone for religious freedom across Europe.”

Although the Council of Europe is unable to pass laws itself, its resolutions have since 1949 helped to define the principles that harmonise human rights laws across the Continent.’

Protect the Pope comment: David Cameron’s refusal to allow a ‘conscience clause’ in his same-sex marriage bill unmasks the totalitarian nature of homosecularism. David Cameron, Peter Tatchell and Stonewall will allow us to live by our Catholic faith just so long as we’re not public servants, employees of commercial companies providing public services or clergy fulfilling a public office such as presiding at a marriage. Ultimately, homosecularists will not tolerate any objections to homosexuality because they equate those who have conscientious objections to same-sex marriage with slavers and apartheid racists.

This speaks to the truism that when that which is immoral becomes legal, that which is moral becomes illegal [invalidly, of course] as treated of by Michael Voris in his Daily Vortex commentary of yesterday. Intrinsic evil must not be cooperated with, must be resisted – our inherent freedom as persons demands this.

The way forward is for the Church to withdraw from participation in civil arrangements for marriage and to continue solemnising marriages on her own terms. Then we can lead a campaign to boycott civil registration while providing a service of registration and social recognition for persons who marry before private witnesses.

The basis of a boycott would be that there is no justification for nouveau marriage to exist as an institution. It is available only to two persons who undertake to live in the same household. To confer legal and social privileges on it discriminates against persons in group units of any other description.

And so chauffeurs, photographers, florists and cakemakers can litigate not so much on grounds of religious conscience, but on the grounds of conscience informed by considerations of human rights: namely the right to be free from discrimination in resepct of rights affected by the privileges of marriage.

“Chauffeurs,florists, photographers and cake makers will be sacked if they object to same-sex marriage”…

…So they’ll knuckle-under, or leave, just like the adoption agencies. How many will stand up and be counted?

You gave the perfect example of what ‘Catholic’ schools have done over the past 40 years. Can’t see people reacting any different now, can you?

Some brave laity might stand up and be counted as wonders never cease in the scheme of grace!
But, if the law’s passed, I’m not holding my breath for the possibility that I’m going to see any Traddie priests giving up their cigars and whisky, trips to Australia for the ACCC, etc., and going to prison for refusing to perform one of these sacrileges. They’ll probably just knuckle-under but join some government focus group about it, arguing they’re being ‘pastoral’ just as +Vin does about the Gay Masses, when you think it’s knuckling under…

quite right. Just because a viewpoint in deeply held by otherwise decent people doesn’t make it right.

Saying that you are obliged to give certain rights to gay people but that somoeone who has a religious objection to doing can be let off that obligation is moral relativism which is something we are told ad nausium is something religion guards against.

Poor way to shut down a legitimate debate about homosexual behavior or redefining marriage – make some bogus bigoted statement that objections to homosexual behavior or redefining marriage are comparable to slaveholders or racists.

How is it the same when our own Catholic teaching says when homosexuals should be treated with ‘… respect, compassion and sensitivity.’

You are moving the conversation on because I was bringing up your comment about homosexuality, and you are now making a comment about faith and evidence.

Christianity is a faith that is based on evidence. Here are some reasons Christianity is a faith based on evidence:

1. There exists many manuscript copies of the Old Testament such as the Dead Scrolls. Scholars have determined the age of the scrolls by the pattern of the cloths that the manuscript is made from, pottery were the manuscripts were kept in, coins found with the manuscripts and form of the characters. The Scrolls have has every book of the Old Testament except the Book of Esther so you can be sure that these were not inserted in the Bible after Jesus lived and they were written before Christ’s birth because of the. 1 out of 4 verses or 27% of the Bible are prediction prophecy, there are hundreds of specific prophecies in the Bible and no other religious book has fulfilled prophecy.

2. There are hundreds of Old testament manuscripts and 24000 manuscripts of the New Testament in part or whole which can be compared to the Gospels and we can see the Gospels are accurate and can be attested. Some of these manuscripts are exhibited in Cambridge university, British Museum, Smithsonian Institute, National Library at Paris, Israel Museum, Oxford university. Go back to the manuscripts and you can verify the text we have in the Bible is the same as what was written in the early manuscripts. In comparison Livy’s history is based on 20 manuscripts; 9 or 10 copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars exist and none earlier than 800 AD.

3. Verification of events, people and places from extra-Biblical sources.

4. Archeological evidence that confirms Biblical cities, events, customs, people. The archeological evidence converted atheist archeologist Sir William Ramsay. If places and customs etc. over and over were out of place in the Bible and not consistent with what we see in archeology and so on, you could think how do I trust the Bible.

5. Ask 40 people what their views are on salvation and evil and what kind of responses do you think you would get? Do you think they will all agree and have a consistency about their responses, or do you think you would get a jumble of responses of varying views?

The Bible was written over by 40 different authors over 1500 years, who came from different educational backgrounds, 66 different documents, written in three different languages and written in different continents and locations and considering all of this, there is a internal consistency and this is evidence of the Holy Spirit guiding those authors.

You would not need to ask people on different continents necessarily to make the point. You will not be alive for over 1500 years, so you couldn’t even ask people today on their views on salvation and evil and ask the same questions in another 1000 years say to different people and make a comparison.

You are not neutral on God’s existence, so therefore you shoulder the burden of proof.

Tim, at 2.02pm, what is ‘rationality’? Obviously there must be a singular, absolute and definitive answer to this question – otherwise, it would not be rational. I look forward to a succinct reply that will leave us faithful folk at a loss to respond.

Tim and John Dare make interesting points. Racists and slavers re-defined what it means to be human, in a similar way to those dictators of relativism who are busy re-defining marriage.
Once again, brilliant work from Carla. The likes of Cameron, Obama and other “liberals” really do not have much time for dialogue.
We really need to do what the good people of France have done. Perhaps Forty Days For Life can help us ?

As a born again believer I obviously believe in God and His Son, Jesus. What I do not believe in is the man-made institution of the Roman church and it’s leader. Please don’t use these terms in the same sentence with slavery. Slavery came about because there was money to be made, a whole different thing. This subject is not related to the topic of this article. Money then really is the only connection with the Roman church.

My apologies to catholics who are true believers (that is that Jesus is our only intercessor between us and the Father), and Roman catholics who still believe that Mary is the intercessor.

Would I pray for the pope? As he is a child of God, yes I’d pray for him. But as the leader of that organization, no, I could not.

But, if I understand Bible prophecy, this organization will very likely be the “One world church” of the end times.

It is time for true Christians in that organization to search their heart and decide where they want to spend eternity. I pray that this is not the delusion that is referred to in scripture. Scripture says,”Come out.)

Bill, who do you think decided what should be included in the New Testament and what should not? The Fathers of what you describe as a man-made institution, that’s who. And the Book of Revelations, that favourite of born-agains and Jehovah’s Witnesses, nearly didn’t make it. The sola scriptura brigade conveniently ignore the fact that the Church existed decades before the first word of the NT was written.

Then, Francis, don’t read them. The Catholics on this blog may disagree on a few points, but they are generally in concord. Even atheists have their views treated with respect. However, you can’t negotiate with born-again fundamentalists. Their minds are closed.

Bill, as a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, I agree with you that Jesus is the one intercessor. The Church has never taught that Mary is the intercessor.
Where in the Bible is the word “Holy Trinity” ever mentioned ? It is the Church that gives us doctrine.It was the Fathers of the Church and the Councils that defined doctrine.
Hope this helps.

Joseph Matthew, protestants make a point of invoking Jesus as “our only Mediator and Advocate” but Catholics believe that Our Lady and the saints intercede for us. Have you never prayed the Salve Regina (turn, O most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy towards us) or the Prayer for England where Mary is asked to “intercede for our separated brethren”? If you are indeed a Catholic, then your catechesis was gravely deficient.

Sorry Ioannes, I agree entirely with you. I was responding to Bill and I should have said that Mary is not THE intercessor. I took it to mean that Bill assumes Catholics believe Mary is intercessor in place of Jesus.

Given that both the British and Irish PM’s are now speaking of the same hymn ( is that un-PC!!!)sheet, it will show that Cameron’s homo-secularist minions will soon do away with safe-guards to ministers of religion who oppose officiating at same sex unions. Given that Kenny was pushing for a breaking of the confessional seal in reads to child abuse; I am sure he will take Dave-Boy’s example when the same sex union comes to Ireland. He has already refused freedom of conscience in the abortion debate to Irish MP’s, so why start now. Also, it is reported in the Irish Examiner,(today’s edition) that at TD wrote to both the Papal Nuncio and to Cardinal Brady concerned over excommunication of legislators when the abortion bill it is voted upon. He stated that the Cardinal replied NOT TO WORRY ABOUT IT, and then went on to explain the Church’s position!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“Jesus is going to do it at the Last Judgement anyway, and we can’t do anything to stop him. We don’t want to, either.”

Quite, Michael.

The point I was trying to make is that objectively true morality exists and its source is to be found in God.

Given their denial of objective right and wrong, moral relativists are in no position to impose their morality on anyone. So they really ought to confine themselves to saying what they like or dislike. End of.

A good thing too! At one time in Britain anyone providing services to Catholics would have faced far worse that the sack… But thankfully we are now a tolerant and accepting society. It is ironic that here we read of a Catholic wanting the right to discriminate, though whinging if anyone should discriminate against him and his kind. I wonder what drivel and hate-mongering would be found here if there was a conscience clause allowed for those of us who think Catholicism is evil had a right to refuse Catholics and their tin pot, idolatry religion, services and goods.

It’s the same thing really – Britain ridded itself of Papism and yet now we find because Enlightenment ideals influenced British law in the early 19th century that we have to ‘live and let live…’ – even when that means the likes of this website spends its time bitching, moaning and carping and spreading hate, discord and seems to have a disproportionate interest in matters below the waist in some shape or form (cesspit minds or what…?).